Michael Foot and the 1983 Manifesto - by Jon Williams

It's interesting to look back to when Labour was at its most unpopular. I think unjustly so - given the harsh treatment by the press at the time - especially of Michael Foot. From his last interview there is one line that highlights his foresight many years ago - amazingly true. He said " Yes, well, they got it all slightly wrong, I thought, when they attacked that manifesto back then. 'The longest suicide note in history', that was what Gerald Kaufman called it. Gerald was actually elected on the same manifesto, so I do still hold that against him, you know. We proposed taking over the banks, not being at the mercy of capitalist forces and all the rest of it. Although it was Jill who suffered the worse from all of that media attention."

The Labour Party Manifesto of 1983 is quite relevant in today's economic troubles. Below is an opening summary of four years of Tory Government from 1979. It all seems very similar to the current Tory (Lib) Government's policies!!

"When the Tories took office in May 1979, unemployment was falling and the economy growing. Living standards had gone up by a sixth in two years, and North Sea oil held out the prospect of economic growth, high levels of employment and better social services.

All this was thrown away by the Tories. Nearly three and a quarter million men and women are now out of work, even on the official count. Plant after plant forced to close. Manufacturing production down by a fifth. Investment cut by a third. Our domestic markets captured by imports of manufactured goods.

After four years of Mrs. Thatcher, Britain is a poorer country. We have fared far worse than any other major industrial country. The unprecedented advantage of North Sea oil and gas - worth, in tax revenues alone, 8p in the pound on income tax - has been squandered, with nothing whatsoever to show for it.

What have all these sacrifices achieved? Our economy today is weaker, not stronger, than in 1979. There is no prospect of real economic growth. Indeed, the Tories no longer dare to predict when unemployment will begin to fall. True enough, inflation, after being forced to record levels by the Tories, has been brought down. But look at the cost in jobs, in poorer housing, in living standards, and in lost opportunities for our youth. And now inflation is set to increase again, with interest rates and mortgage rates likely to rise too.

The legacy of four Tory years goes beyond unemployment and industrial decline; beyond the damage done to our social services; beyond even the dangerous commitment to new nuclear weapons. It is expressed in the deep sense of bitterness, distrust and despair now felt among so many sections of the community. Our task will be to heal these wounds and rekindle among the British people a new sense of unity and common purpose."

Unbelievable how the above words still apply today, in particular after the recent riots - "heal these wounds and rekindle among the British people a new sense of unity and common purpose."

At first glance there are several good ideas in this manifesto - that could be used even today. I believe all were agreed at Annual Conference, when it was still permitted.



On Michael Foot also see here and here.

Food For Serious Thought

If you wish to give serious thought to our own and the wider world's current social, economic and political problems, the BBC 4 programmes which can be accessed via this link provides a valuable starting point. But beware, the first programme is likely to be removed from the link just after midnight on 14 August

What No Labour Party Democracy?

More on the latest developments over "Refounding Labour" (which we last covered here) and the possibility that Labour Party Members will be faced with a fate accompli. See this important item posted by Peter Keynon (photo). We may need an emergency meeting soon to discuss his concerns. Watch this space. Thanks for your efforts Peter.

Update 5 August : The plot thickens.

Update 7 August : Peter shows that things have just got worse.

For convenience I have placed the 12 threads on this topic onto the label "Refounding" which can be clicked onto in the bottom right hand corner of this item.

Identifying With Jack

This is a photo of the Labour Cabinet of 1945. The fourth person from the right in the back row is Jack Lawson (1881-1965). He differed from me in many ways, such as working in the pit where he went as a 12 year old , becoming a Government Minister and then a Peer. Yet there are many points on which I can identify with him. Although things often happened to us in a very different order and in a different context. For me, they were also at a much more shallower depth. But I can claim to share aspects of the points below - although unlike Jack I left the Methodist Chapel.

1. He was born in the north of England in a coastal mining community. 2. He grew up in a Durham County mining colliery. 3. He became a Methodist. 4. He joined the ILP. 5. He joined the Labour Party. 6. He joined the Co-op. 7. He was a bibliophile. 8. He made use of a bookseller in Newcastle in his early days. 9. His wife had links with Sunderland. 10. He had an involvement with adult education. 11. He studied at Ruskin College. 12 He served for two years in the forces. 13. He became a Labour MP. 14. He spent time at Easington Colliery.

I have finally got around to reading his 1932/1944 autobiography "A Man's Life" which I review here. However be warned, my review is a long one and I say nearly as much about myself as I do about Jack. But these are the entitlements of an old blatherer.

Support Justice For All

One of the ways to fight the proposed cuts in legal aid (which was the topic we examined at our Discussion Meeting earlier this month) is to support and help the work of the "Justice For All" Campaign. To see what they are about and then to give them your support, see here.

You can also press your MP into giving them support. This is of particular importance as legislation which is currently before parliament is in need of radical change, if it is not going to create serious problems for many vulnerable people who are in need of the legal aid services, such as those services provided by Law Centres.

The role of the Campaign is explained in Early Day Motion 1194 which is currently before the Commons. Under the title Justice For All Campaign it states - "That this House welcomes the Justice for All campaign launched in the House of Commons on 12 January 2011; supports the aims of the campaign which are to raise awareness of the vital importance of advice and representation on legal matters for the most vulnerable in our society and to ensure that everyone is treated fairly under the law, no matter who they are, how much money they have or where they live; recognises that the strength of feeling is reflected in the fact that the campaign is a broad coalition of legal and advice agencies, trades unions, charities, community groups and members of the public; regrets that the reduction in spending on legal aid, through restrictions in scope and eligibility and the blanket 10 per cent. cut in the lower fee paid to providers of legal services, is having a detrimental effect on access to justice and on the well-being of the most vulnerable people; questions the real cost savings to the public purse that this budget reduction will achieve, given that early advice on legal matters saves money by keeping families together in their homes, and in work and education; believes that free, independent advice and representation on legal matters is essential to achieve justice for all; and calls on the Government to rethink the provision of legal services for the poorest in society."

The proposal is currently supported by 109 MPs. The political party make-up for this support is 83 Labour, 15 Lib-Dems, 3 Democratic Unionists, 3 SDLP, 2 Conservative, 2 Plaid Cymru and 1 Green. Their names can be found here. Names added who are Conservative and/or Liberal Democrat MPs will be greatly prized for they help break the Government's stranglehold on the current proposals. So it is a matter of how good you are at winning friends and influencing people.

Refounding Labour Will Not Be Refinding Labour

If you ignore the item below this , there then follows ten threads which are related to this one.

What appears below is taken from Ann Black's unofficial report of Labour's National Executive Committee Meeting which was held on 19 July. It covers the latest known stage of developments in the follow up to Labour's consultations on "Refounding Labour". Much of what is emerging will be presented in a "take-it or leave-it" form at the coming Labour Party Conference. Many of the ideas which are being peddled are in direct opposition to the proposals which were submitted by our Discussion Group, the Dronfield Branch of the Labour Party and the North East Derbyshire Constituency Party. In the final section which appears below, Peter Hain even seems to deny that he ever received our Discussion Group's submission. For we sent him the very idea he says had no support.

Without Ann Black we would have little idea of what is now likely to be foisted upon us.


"Refounding Labour Continued

Peter Hain introduced the latest proposals, after discussion in the organisation committee. An interim report has been circulated to stakeholders, and I’ve attached a copy. The NEC will not agree final recommendations until 20 September, four days before conference, no amendments will be allowed, and Peter will ask delegates to vote Yes or No to the entire package including rule changes. I think this is a bad way to begin a new era. In 2007 Gordon Brown pushed Extending and Renewing Party Democracy through conference, and we spent the next three years removing unpopular and unworkable parts. As a fallback I have asked for constituency NEC representatives to be engaged throughout the summer so we do not end up with deals or
stand-offs between the leadership and the unions, and I will consult as widely as I can. I was also promised, again, the full membership of the shadow cabinet review groups, a request outstanding since November 2010.

There is plenty of good stuff in the paper: welcoming new members, engaging with the community, more flexible local structures and so on, though much of this concerns good practice rather than rules. It recognises that many developments are only feasible with new technology, although these risk widening the digital divide. Development plans for constituencies and contracts between local parties and candidates or elected representatives gained general support but the details will be crucial.

The same applies to registered supporters. Maintaining lists of people who will help with campaigns, and inviting them to social events and local policy discussions, seems uncontentious. While Refounding Labour would not give them votes for council or parliamentary candidates, it does envisage allowing them to vote for the party leader as part of the affiliates’ section. Further, external organisations could apply for “registered consultee” status and gain rights to give evidence to policy commissions greater than those enjoyed by constituencies. Sharing contact information between the party and the unions is
another sensitive issue, and the unions are keen to regain nomination rights in parliamentary selections.

From Each According to their Means …

The paper tries to balance concerns that subscriptions are too high against the need to maintain income. The minimum age for joining would be reduced to 14, paying £1 a year until the age of 20, then £12 from age 20 to 26. Unwaged members and registered supporters would pay £15, and this would also be the first-year rate for new joiners. After that rates would be linked to income: £24 for trade union levy-payers and those earning under £20,000, going up by £12 a year for each additional £5,000 of salary.

Currently constituencies receive 33% of reduced-rate and 22% of standard-rate subscriptions. For some this is less than central charges for election insurance and the Euro-levy, and optionally Contact Creator, so they are permanently in the red. Many have argued that national charges should be proportional to the number of members, and so I will pursue this. It fails to address inequalities in wealth related to property or legacies, but no-one has yet found a way of
grasping that nettle.

On openness the paper is patchy. I agree that women, ethnic minority and young members should be able to work across party boundaries on common objectives, and hope that this will extend to constituency secretaries, and indeed to all members. The section on Young Labour has been subject to exhaustive consultation: among many changes, constituency youth officers and national policy forum youth representatives would in future be elected by young members only. There is a commitment to further discussions with the Northern Ireland CLP, the SDLP and the Irish Labour Party. And it is proposed to change the rules so that constituency AGMs would normally be held in November rather than February, leaving the spring free for campaigning: I would be interested in views on this.

Counting the Votes

Most agreed that multiple votes for the leader were not defensible. MPs could be restricted to their own section, but enforcing single votes across individual and affiliated members would only be possible if the ballot was conducted by a single body. The principle of having a woman in the leadership team was endorsed, but there were doubts about a leadership ticket, where candidates would choose a running-mate of the opposite gender and members would vote for the leader only, so discussion will continue.

Also still unresolved are voting procedures at conference, the make-up of the conference arrangements committee, and the composition of the NEC itself, apart from a proposal that the Scottish and Welsh leaders should each nominate a member of their executive committees with voting status. I am opposed to the idea of giving some of the conference vote to the national policy forum: it does not exist as a collective entity, and the NEC, as part of the forum, would gain a significant share. All these are central to the party’s future, and it would be wrong and dangerous to bounce them through conference without proper consultation. Finally Peter Hain said that submissions supported the continued vital role of the joint policy committee, and that there was no support for restoring any policy-making role to the NEC."

UPDATE 26 JULY: On this theme, see today's important contribution from Peter Kenyon here.

Still Refounding Labour

We devoted two of our recent discussion meetings to a consideration of the Labour Party's consultative document "Refounding Labour", as well as to certain related documents. We also forwarded submissions on these to the Labour Party. Similar action was taken by the Dronfield Branch of the Labour Party and by the North East Derbyshire Constituency Labour Party. The Regional Offices of the Labour Party also ran consultative meetings on "Refounding Labour" at Chesterfield and Sheffield. Details of these and related activities can be found here.

The Labour Party has now produced what it calls a "Summary Report" arising from its consultation procedures on "Refounding Labour". It can be found via this link. Comments upon this stage of the proceedings would be welcome. We will be pursuing the issue further.